Legion World Forums LEGION WORLD Science Police Headquarters RULES! Updated.

[Computo]
{[...] Actually, you showed disrespect for my opinion when you labelled it with the insulting and pejorative "nonsense". That's clearly contrary to Rule 1: [...]}

Are you incapable of distinguishing between vigorous disagreement and personal insult? It seems that you are. Disagreement does not at all require disrespect, though how you're reacting to the first is starting to create the second.

I cannot control how you take an assessment that your opinions -- about how this board is supposedly interfering with personal expression -- are not based in any observations rooted in sense, do not cohere as to making sense, and are thus, to be succinct and from my viewpoint, nonsense.

If you are determined to see this as an insult, despite my explicitly saying that this was dealing only with what you were saying, I cannot change your decision. Only you can.

Does showing this thin skin please you, coming into what is for you a new Net community that you plainly have not observed for long? I can assure you that I don't find this pleasing. The founders leave us great latitude as to encouraging genuine discussion. Which, until you came along with some fairly petty legalisms, is what this was.

And don't lecture me about spontaneous ordering of worldwide markets. As against the predilections of most lawyers I've met, and knowing my own background as a writer, editor, and magazine publisher, I've probably forgotten more about that matter than you have ever learned. (Okay, that's hyperbole. Nonetheless, you're presuming a lot to give such a lecture.)

We are talking about whether particular rules create a desired end, and whose purview it is to set these up and apply them. If you want to be a part of this community, you might try working with these rules and the people who are here, and the scope of how they see them.

In a community this size, it does come down to the objectivity of the two men who own the venue and are in charge. There's no other practical way to deal with this. We don't have bigger contractual arrangements. I would suggest that you would benefit by gaining, especially, a sense of proportion.

{[...] Given you wanted them "on the record", though, it's surprising that you were distressed that they were repeated. }

I was only "distressed" over the prospect of the error being made that you ended up making, and with which we started. That is, that others would assume I was still taking part in a message venue that I had said I was not using, and which I had openly come to detest, along with the absurdities believed by its owner.

Greybird writes:
You're trolling again, Greybird. Stop it.

I'm not lecturing you, I'm trying to expand my point with reference to other forms of unregulated and perfectly workable systems, none of which are a "nonsense", or "petty".

He Who Wanders is capable of debating me in a rational and polite fashion. He disagrees with me, and I respectfully accept his opinion. I'd do that even if it wasn't rule #1, because he's engaging in level-headed, persuasive and non-emotive debate without repeatedly resorting to ad hominem insults based on unfounded assumptions on my background and profession, none of which you know anything about whatsoever.

I'll gladly discuss the matter further with He Who Wanders, but not with you, while you're clearly picking for a fight.

In the meantime, the moderators (despite regular visits here) continue to do nothing to reign in Greybird and his attempts at baiting, rather than politely and respectfully debating, and Kid Prime backs them on it.

The rules seem to be working wonderfully.

Addressing He Who Wanders:

Its an exhausting process, when the alternative is simply to let people have their fun until they get bored with it and be on their way. I guess that would be an example of a type of system reaching equilibrium.

As you acknowledge, however, you had a bad experience on the RKMBs, which has firmed up your views. Fair enough.

Despite my initial disinterest in the matter, it'll be mildly interesting to see if you or I am ultimately right.

Thanks for your thoughts anyway - they are actually very persuasive.

Dave

I see...so "emotional hurt" is now a criteria for trolling? As long as there is no "emotional hurt", I can call people names and pick fights with whoever I like? With respect, I think you're missing the point. Trolling is the conduct, not the reaction.

I raise this with you in particular because I have also just noticed you are in fact a moderator of this particular board. So calling my views "specious, grossly hyperbolic, and unwarranted", as well as iconoclastic, is your version of non-partisan moderation, as well as your observance of rule #1?

And I think you are using hyperbole in an attempt to be obtuse.

Let me ask you this... is it your desire for the administrators on this board to ban Greybird because he called an opinion of yours "nonsense?" Do you want to ban me next because I called your criticism "specious?" Or maybe I should censure myself for all to see?

Or is your goal simply argument for argument's sake?

You guys must get paid by the word.

I say this respectfully of course.

[Computo]
{[...] I'm not lecturing you, I'm trying to expand my point with reference to other forms of unregulated and perfectly workable systems, none of which are a "nonsense", or "petty". }

Faulty analogies, and not applicable to an individual instance of private property such as this one. Which you know already. I am able to assume that with reasonable certainty because you have completed a law-school education and a bachelor's degree, and would have been exposed to the scope, applicability, and limits of law as such, whether you took heed of these elements or not.

You also, again judging from lawyers I have known well, and your previous comments on "the rules," are making use of an all-too-common fallacy. If you have a big enough hammer of legal reasoning, every human activity looks like a nail that can be pounded upon in terms of legalisms. Including this message board.

Talking about "systems" gets you nowhere in examining how interaction is handled in a setting such as this. It's a matter of the founders acting in an objective manner, or not, with those using their small piece of private Net property. No relationship here is contractual (or tortious, involving damages if it goes awry), except Lightning Lad's with his Web server provider.

Legal or system analogies don't apply, even in regard to your analysis of the house rules. We have no laws, and this isn't a macro-sized system. We are Scott's and Gary's well-behaved (we all hope) family or house guests, that's the closest -- but still not quite accurate -- analogy.

As for "ad hominem insults," or "baiting," that calls for knowing details of "the man" involved, to properly allude to the meaning of that Latin phrase. Only a few of us have been around each other long enough (mostly on the old DC boards) to know very many personal details in this sense.

You apparently haven't, so the only basis for ad hominem here is to suggest that your profession -- about all we know about you -- discredits your argument. That hasn't been done by anybody. I came close in the comment about "what I've forgotten" above, but I immediately noted that I was using hyperbole.

I don't believe in sedate debate with an articulate opponent. When it can involve letting things fly, I let them fly. I don't insult, but I do often get exasperated, and I note that fact, rather than apply it in an attempt to score points.

As I am now noting it with you. As Minesurfer said, some of us who like to "talk" so much do indeed get paid, but only in psychic satisfaction. And only when it's making a useful argument or pungent turn of rhetoric. I'd say you and I have reached the limits here on both counts.

Finally, you debate me with some real argument (setting aside the fact that you engage in ad hominem again, in attacking me and my background rather than the actual issue).

Aside from the fact that securities exchanges are private property, what makes you think that an unregulated system cannot be applied to private property? What is there inherent in private property that encourages regulation?

You're attacking me as a lawyer on the basis of your experience with them, not my argument as presented here. Ad hominem. (see below)

So you're saying the rules have no effect?

As far as I can see, you're saying the rules are not laws, or more precisely, contractual terms. I disagree. If I break the rules, I have been explicitly told that I can expect censure or warning. That sounds like a governing system - laws or rules, depending upon how you like to flavour your semantics - to me.

No, it doesn't have to be sourced upon personal information. Check this out .

Quote

You apparently haven't, so the only basis for ad hominem here is to suggest that your profession -- about all we know about you -- discredits your argument. That hasn't been done by anybody. I came close in the comment about "what I've forgotten" above, but I immediately noted that I was using hyperbole.

I don't believe in sedate debate with an articulate opponent. When it can involve letting things fly, I let them fly. I don't insult, but I do often get exasperated, and I note that fact, rather than apply it in an attempt to score points.

It wasn't point scoring. We are specifically told that we have to obey the rules, including respect, and that even a victim of an attack will get banned if he responds in kind. I perceived your comments as a personal attack, and certainly as disrespectful, and did not respond in kind. I obeyed the rules, and have treated your opinion with respect and restraint. You did not reciprocate.

You were not even censured, as far as I know, for your lack of respect. No one said, "Grey, pull your head in: he's said nothing more offensive to you than using the words "emotive" and "distressed" to describe some of your posts, while you have said that his posts are "nonsense", and "petty", and said "I have forgotten more than you'll ever know"."

Having said that, I have now received, to his credit, a very polite note from Kid Prime, addressing the issue with a decent attempt at objectivity (including of his own conduct) and a measure of even-handedness. He opines that one of your comments was "fairly weak" personal attack, but at least he impliedly acknowledges my point. He has promised to monitor this debate, but it seems the most he is willing to do is close the thread, rather than censure anyone. Although it took some prompting, I think he is now being responsible and fair, particularly in not strictly enforcing the rules (which, of course, serves my initial argument that strict enforcement is unfair). I also don't see any point in pursuing a complaint against you through any formal process, since I am clearly against such a mechanism. I think I've proved my point.

In any event, while you're certainly not contrite, you're being very civil and polite now.

Quote

As I am now noting it with you. As Minesurfer said, some of us who like to "talk" so much do indeed get paid, but only in psychic satisfaction. And only when it's making a useful argument or pungent turn of rhetoric. I'd say you and I have reached the limits here on both counts.

Twice I've expressed disinterest in this topic, but twice you've tried to engage me on it with your opinion. If you think its reached its limit, then let it go.

Its a shame you and I have kicked off on the wrong foot, really. You do actually sound like an interesting guy. Never mind.

Dave

This is the funniest thread on the ENTIRE board!!!!

Just imagine what a lawyer message board reads like!

A real lawyer message board is probably nothing but jokes because they have to be serious and weighty in their jobs all day.

We're off-topic here now; not disrespectful, I trust, but decidedly off-topic. So let's self-censure and get back to DA RULZ.

On the matter of arguments, respect, insults - personally, I don't apply black and white rules. It's not my place, ultimately, to apply any rules, since the authorities are the board owners (that's my "out") - but we are operating here to some degree as a self-regulating group. I say this in the sense that, when somebody gets insulted - such as Icefyre by Gossamer - and it continues - other members intervene and try to put an end to it. We don't have the power to ban somebody, but we can all condemn what we believe is inappropriate behaviour. And there's the dilemma.

Who judges what is inappropriate in such a self-regulating system? Social norms and standards? We've hardly been around long enough to have developed cohesive and reliable norms. When do you intervene? At the first hint of trouble, or do you hope (vain hope!) that it will pass, that someone was in a bad mood or drunk or something and will later apologize?
Computo and Greybird appear to be working out some clarification and common ground for debate. What would have been served by bringing the gavel down earlier?

Some posters appear to regularly get into discussions that become insult wars - and my reaction is to let that slide, because "so-and-so is always like that" or "those two are always bickering".

I acknowledge that this sort of self-regulation is rife with problems because it is subjective and inconsistent and may well fail as often as it succeeds. I also suspect that it may only work with the threat of force behind it - the big stick of absolute authority.

In the real world, we appear to be trying to mediate disputes more and more, rather than go to court. Small claims (in North America anyways) are settled by a different process than criminal charges. I'm not saying that there aren't rules - or guidelines - for these, but that such disputes try to avoid going before the ultimate authority - the judge or judge & jury.

For myself, I honestly don't see a clear answer to the question of rules/no rules for a message board.

New Rule:

If these guys are getting paid by the word, then quoted words only count as half of a word for payment purposes.

Respectfully submitted of course.

I charge in 5 minute units. You don't want to know how much. I often comment that I couldn't afford myself.

They're boring. Why do you think I spend so much time on comic book boards?

Sort of my point. Such things tend to reach equilibrium (so long as no one starts running around making farewell speeches and locking down threads).

Anyway, I think everyone has decided to call it a day.

Dave

Not quite. I have two others who still deserve a response.

[Fat Cramer]
{[...] Computo and Greybird appear to be working out some clarification and common ground for debate. }

Not when someone insists that logical fallacies are present when they are not. Reflecting that someone's profession or preferences make a particular response unsurprising is not the same as contending that those qualities make a particular response invalid.

It's too easy to confuse personal criticism, which is indeed present, with making ad hominem fallacies, which are not present. At some point this betrays not merely a misunderstanding of such lapses in logic, but also a thin rhetorical skin.

{ What would have been served by bringing the gavel down earlier? }

Nothing. Which makes the emphasis on legalism about these forum rules doubly mysterious. It doesn't come to a point, except by splitting hairs that nobody wants to split -- prematurely, at any rate. Certainly not the LW.net founders. And it gives every indication of spoiling for a fight, rather than wanting discussion.

I initially got into this only to correct a misapprehension about my own actions -- for which, I'll point out, there still has been no apology. (Nor did I ask for one, yet many people are capable of realizing on their own when one becomes appropriate.)

And, as usual, I also ended up doing this to think out loud for a bit. Not to debate, as such. We haven't had very interesting grounds for that, aside from some fruits of sheer personal imagination. I don't debate such ghosts for long. Nor grovel before them with an expected act of "contrition." I have better things to do.

[MLLASH]
{ This is the funniest thread on the ENTIRE board!!! }

Is it, Lash LaRue? Do I go around making light of what gives you pleasure? Such as dozens of threads with nothing but flirting? This kind of reasoning -- conducted on its own terms, quite apart from the worthiness of the target -- gives me pleasure. Until the opponents talk in circles, anyway.

Maybe you deserve outraged censure from the founders, with their locking your head in the stocks so we can throw rotten cyberfruit at you, and being cruelly cast aside for your effrontery and lack of contrition? Hmmm? {rueful winking smile}

What gives you pleasure gives me pleasure, Grey!

It would have been funnier if Greybird had been banned.

For?!?

Anything. I'm just saying it would have been funny, not that he deserved it.

I've got to give LLash some credit... he is very respectful when he is flirting.

I hear he treats you like crap once he's had his way with you, though.

Awwww EDE, you *know* that isn't true... *tee hee!*

BUMPing, since I just remembered about this and was very surprised it wasn't highlighted

You notice that Computo (Dave) never came back since? ... No applause, friends, for vanquishing that Legion nemesis, just throw money {rueful smile}

Seriously, I wish he hadn't gone away in an apparent snit, as he clearly was intelligent.

Methinks "the rules" could stand being re-posted in a separate, read-only, locked and highlighted thread, with this one being tagged for discussion of same. Founders? Would you, please?

Otherwise some are going to be scared off by a week of verbal torrents from last Fall. (I admit to being part of that, though still not to any sophistry or genuine insult -- that was all his.)

I have a (not apart of the board) link to the rules around here somewhere. I'll use that for the SPHQ intro, when I find it.

Here - http://www.legionworld.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=agree_review